Flash on tablets. Flash on iPhone. Flash on mobile. The arguments rage on and on. I skim through some of them and close the pages as people are still ranting on over pros and cons of Flash without having the remotest idea of what they are talking about.
What cleans better? Tide or Surf?
Which tastes better? Coke or Pepsi?
Which is the better OS? Symbian or Android?
Which is...
WHO CARES???!!!
Rather, a better answer is that the answer is not which is better or worse, but what is more acceptable to the masses. Even that has a major proviso: Which masses and how big a mass. When we speak of percentages, it is easy to overlook that there are very, very large numbers behind each percentage point. As per one source, Linux is used on only 1% of the desktops. Should we junk it? Ofcourse not. Why? Because (1) 1% is still hundreds of thousands of computers, (2) it gives people a choice, (3) it fits certain requirements which may not be filled by other OS's, (4)... lots of other reasons.
So, instead of generics, let's talk Flash.
What is wrong with Flash? Or, one might ask, what are the strengths of Flash?
Same answer: Who cares? See reasons above. They fit the answer to Flash just as much as the answer to the Coke or Pepsi question.
To be more specific. Flash has performance issues. So? I really mean it and shall repeat: So? Should we all sit on our hands waiting for the perfect whatchamacallit to come along that installs in 1 byte and runs video in 3D while doing your taxes? And just where is it going to come from without any versions? Is it just going to bloom in all its perfection at the next summer solstice? Don't hold your breath.
Flash has compatibility issues. This really gets me going. Every software has compatibility issues and every software will continue to have them as long as people buy hardware from different manufacturers. Shall we vote on the one we want to stay in business and ask all other manufacturers to close shop? Again, don't hold your breath.
Only someone who has written a program can begin to appreciate how much work it takes to get a piece of code to perform with such variety of hardware and operating systems. I don't count people who have written Excel macros and JavaScript as programmers; if you've written a TSR program using INT21 only then would I count you as one. All the rest are just standing on the shoulders of the real ones.
This is not just hubris. Actually, if you know me, then you know that most of it is. To cut short, as I am pressed for time, the expectations of button-pushers have leap-frogged the ability of programmers by all reasonable bounds. Those people who started composing letters using WordStar never complain about the short-coming of Word's grammar checker in dealing with the King's English. That is because they have some idea of where things started from and how far along they have come. No one may question the abilities of Tom Watson, Jr as a visionary but even he could not have envisioned the day when we would watch TV movies on a phone and have phones implanted under our skins.
Legions of hardware designers and software coders have worked for over half a century so that during a single life-time we went from a Winchester 3340 to the Nexus S. How many man-hours, rather, man-eons were spent getting from there to here is the one figure that can never be calculated.
And, after all that, when someone says: "Golly, why does it take a whole minute to email a picture from my phone over 3G?" it makes me want to stick that phone up his where-the-sun-doesn't-shine.
No comments:
Post a Comment